Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi
Half a century after its enactment, Article 371-C of the Constitution and the Presidential Order of 20th June 1972—known as the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972—designed to protect the tribal communities of Manipur’s Hill Areas through a distinct mechanism for legislation on Scheduled Matters, together create a unique administrative arrangement for the “Hill Areas” of Manipur. These provisions were provided to safeguard the interests of the Scheduled Tribes inhabiting these areas, and need to be revisited to understand their intent and continuing relevance amid rising calls for separate administration and greater autonomy.
A Distinct Constitutional Mechanism
Unlike any other state in India, Manipur has a constitutionally mandated system that grants it a Hill Areas Committee (HAC), constituted under Article 371-C, with a defined role in legislation relating to “Scheduled Matters” for tribals living in the “hill areas”. Yet, in the five decades since these provisions came into force post full-fledged statehood, serious efforts to implement them have been largely absent. Against the current clamour of demands for separate administration by the Zo (Chin, Kuki, Mizo) ethnic group and ideas for extension of the Sixth Schedule to “hill areas” in the hope of coexistence, understanding Article 371-C and the 1972 Order becomes crucial.
Legislative Rights and “Scheduled Matters”
Following the insertion of Article 371-C, a Presidential Order dated 20th June 1972 was notified containing details about how the arrangement will function under the new Article. Important among them is paragraph 4(3) of the 1972 Order which states that the HAC “shall have the right to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the Government of the State any legislation or executive action affecting the Hill Areas with respect to any Scheduled matter.” The matters for legislation are enumerated under “Scheduled Matters” in the Second Schedule of the 1972 Order. They include development planning, district councils, land, forest, water, shifting cultivation, village administration, public health, inheritance, marriage, divorce, and social customs. The key word here is “right” - a constitutional recognition that the HAC possesses the authority to recommend legislation. In legal terms, “legislation” includes the full process of law-making: drafting, debating, and enacting laws. Therefore, the HAC’s right to recommend legislation implies the power to draft and propose Bills on matters relating to “Scheduled Matters” in the “Hill Areas”.
Article 371-C and the 1972 Order, read together, lay the foundation of local governance and tribal autonomy envisaged for the “Hill Areas” of Manipur.
The Historical Context
When Manipur became a full-fledged state in 1972, the framers of Article 371-C sought to preserve the safeguards earlier provided under Section 52 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. The “Statement of Objects and Reasons” appended to the 27th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971 explicitly states that Article 371-C was inserted to continue these protections for the “Hill Areas” post-full-fledged statehood.
Accordingly, the Presidential Order of 1972 defined the “Hill Areas,” established the HAC, and laid out its functions through four schedules:
1. Areas determined as “Hill Areas”
2. Scheduled Matters on which the HAC may legislate
3. Modifications to the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur
4. Modifications to the Rules of Procedure of the Manipur Legislative Assembly
The Hill Areas Committee’s Legislative Process
Under Paragraph 4(1) of the 1972 Order, it states that all Scheduled Matters “insofar as they relate to the Hill Areas” fall within the HAC’s purview. Paragraph 5 provides that any Bill referred to the HAC “may, if so recommended, be passed by the Assembly with such variations as may be necessary in its application to the Hill Areas.”
Rules 140 and 157-A of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure lay down how such Bills are to be introduced, referred to the HAC, and, if necessary, resolved through the Governor’s intervention.
In essence, the legislations recommended by HAC are to be tabled before the Assembly by the concerned department, which will then be referred to the HAC for reporting back to the Assembly. If the Assembly passes a Bill that substantially differs from the HAC’s version, the matter is to be referred by the Speaker to the Governor, whose decision is final. This arrangement gives constitutional weight to the role of legislation by the HAC, recognising the expertise of the elected members from “hill areas” on tribal customs and local self-governance systems. There is also the role of the President under Article 371-C(2), giving liberty to the HAC to seek the intervention of the President, who may call for a report from the Governor, and the Union government can issue executive directions to the State as to the administration of the hill areas. The oversight given to the Speaker, Governor, and the President gives the HAC channels to seek remedial actions under the Constitution.
The 2021 ADC Bill and the Question of Compliance
In 2021, the HAC recommended the Manipur (Hill Areas) Autonomous District Council (ADC) Bill to the state government. Instead of acting upon it, the government introduced two new Bills—the District Councils (Sixth Amendment) Bill, 2022, and the District Councils (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2022—which borrowed selectively from the HAC’s draft. This move appears inconsistent with Rule 12-A of the Rules of Business of the Government of Manipur (1972), which clearly states that the Council of Ministers “shall normally give effect to the recommendations of the Hill Areas Committee.” If the Council disagrees, it must refer the matter to the Governor—not substitute the Bill altogether.
By sidelining the HAC’s draft and introducing its own versions, the state government risks undermining the constitutional safeguards established under Article 371-C. This not only delays meaningful devolution but also contravenes the procedural framework designed to protect the interests of the tribes in “Hill Areas”.
The Speaker’s Oversight Role
Rule 157A(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, 1964, provides that “When a Bill as reported by the Hill Areas Committee is not passed by the Assembly in the form in which it has been reported but is passed in a form which, in the opinion of the Speaker, is substantially different from that as reported by the Hill Areas Committee, or is rejected by the Assembly, the Speaker shall submit to the Governor;”
This Rule gives an oversight function to the Speaker to refer the Bill passed by the Assembly to the Governor, if it substantially differs from the HAC’s version, and his decision would be final.
The Governor’s and President’s Oversight Role
Paragraph 9 of the 1972 Order assigns the Governor a “special responsibility for securing the proper functioning of the Hill Areas Committee.” In cases where the state government fails to act on HAC recommendations, or where delays threaten the intent of the constitutional safeguards, the Governor—and, if necessary, the President—has the authority to intervene.
Given that the HAC’s 2021 Bill has remained pending for more than four years, it may now be incumbent upon the HAC to formally petition the Governor under Paragraph 9 or to the President under Article 371-C(2). Civil society organisations from the Hill Areas may also consider submitting representations in support of this constitutional process.
A Constitutional Safeguard Worth Reaffirming
Article 371-C was never meant to be symbolic. It represents a carefully balanced mechanism for legislation on “Scheduled Matters” and its administration in hill areas for protecting the political and cultural rights of Manipur’s hill tribes while maintaining the integrity of the state. Its spirit lies in cooperation, not confrontation.
Whether the provisions of Article 371-C and the 1972 Order can still function as intended would now depend on the political will of both the state government and the HAC. The choice is clear: either to uphold the constitutional safeguards envisaged half a century ago, or to risk deepening the divide between the hills and the valley.
